Majesty will be unable to actually comprehend it, and so will not even respond directly to its points. Instead, he'll proceed with his own, patented, WLC wall of canned ideas as though the first post never existed.

Majesty will be unable to actually comprehend it, and so will not even respond directly to its points. Instead, he'll proceed with his own, patented, WLC wall of canned ideas as though the first post never existed.

I forgot the guys name, but the air force retiree, stated that the kalam doesn't state what the first cause was. Well, in my arguments i will present reasons to believe that the first cause is PERSONAL, which shouldnt be a problem.

You'll eventually learn that you can't prove a first cause of any sort by using philosophy. The best you'll do is present an argument that might convince some people who are already inclined to accept that deities exist. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not sufficient to sway skeptics. We already know this. You're attempting to use an argument that has failed in the past and will continue to fail.

What will happen here, Keith, is that this debate will end with you claiming victory, even though you'll have seen sufficient evidence to show the Kalam argument to be ineffective. If you're an honest man, Keith, you'll admit today you could be wrong about your belief in God, and you'll publicly agree that you're willing and prepared to change your mind about God if your debate opponents offer an effective argument that refutes the Kalam argument. It is, after all, your primary weapon in this debate; if it fails, you have no choice but to rethink your position ... if you're honest. Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

Are you willing to ask my opponent the same question? To me it seems as if you guys are in fear of the kalam argument. But thats ok, because each and every last one of you people will have hell to pay. I am going through each and every last one of you. Jazzman, you can be next.

I will present my arguments later on, we are extremely business at the job, but later on tonight, it is ON like Donkey Kong!!

Majesty will be unable to actually comprehend it, and so will not even respond directly to its points. Instead, he'll proceed with his own, patented, WLC wall of canned ideas as though the first post never existed.

In fairness, I think that in general accordance with the practice of formal debates, Majesty would properly more or less ignore my post initially, using his Opening Statement to state his positive case for the validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and only address my post in his first Rebuttal. So, if he does what you expect (ignore my first post and proceed with his own arguments in his first post) I think it would be premature to start blowing any whistles on him. If he fails to address my points in subsequent rebuttal posts, then it's fair to call him on it. But I think he is fully entitled to use his first post to present a positive case for his position instead of responding to mine. If anything, it's what he "should" do, though I would not presume to actually tell him what he should post.

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause2. The universe exist3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Why must this be qualified with "begins to"?

Would leaving that out mean the alleged "creator" would need a cause, too?

Yes, it would. If the Christian God is eternal, it cannot have a beginning. This is crucial to Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief in this particular deity. The God of Abraham must be eternal, else this God is not the powerful deity that people of these three religions believe this deity to be.

It's essential that God be the "Uncaused Cause" of all things. Therefore, the Kalam Cosmological Argument must begin the way it does. Otherwise, God needs a cause, and and thus we begin infinite regression. That's a losing battle, and theists know it. So they frame the argument in a way that allows them to avoid dealing with infinite regression.

I am quite capable of being wrong. Which is why I consider error-correction mechanisms like reason, logic, and the scientific method to be vital if I want to have my world-view asymptotically converge on reality rather than wandering off into error.

Of course I (and many others here) would be willing to admit defeat. Do you think we are here just for the fun of it? Defeat in this debate could mean eternal life, so I for one, would be thanking you. So it's a win only situation from my side of the fence.

On the other hand, if you are wrong, you will still have a lot left to deal with. In the event of your acceptance that there is no reason to believe in a resurrected Jesus, your house of cards will come crashing down. You will then experience anger, denial, and grief for loss of many of your core beliefs. A lot will change for you and it will not necessarily be that easy.

I'm thinking proceed with confidence, but not arrogance.

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

So, if he does what you expect (ignore my first post and proceed with his own arguments in his first post) I think it would be premature to start blowing any whistles on him. If he fails to address my points in subsequent rebuttal posts, then it's fair to call him on it. But I think he is fully entitled to use his first post to present a positive case for his position instead of responding to mine. If anything, it's what he "should" do, though I would not presume to actually tell him what he should post.

I base my prediction on past results: when christians hear about science they think technology, and say "Yes, it's nice. But god is love."

Most don't seem to PERCIEVE that it used to be a TOTALLY magic world, and that science is the ONLY thing that has broken down all that magic. They don't PERCIEVE that what they have now is only a tiny toe-hold on what they once had. It's a frog-in-slowly-heating-water-deal. I've never seen a christian truly acknowledge the TREND of human understanding (that it's RELENTLESSLY away from magic and RELENTLESSLY toward materialism--or at least rationality in general). Anyone who sees that trend, actually, can't drop religion fast enough. When a person truly sees that trend they feel like an idiot not acknowledging it--and hopping on. When they don't, it's because they see it as "just technology."

No need to. I know from comments Kcrady has made in other threads that he's open to evidence that he could be wrong. In fact, you'll find that most nonbelievers here will say the same thing, including me. You're probably not the person who will, finally and forever, present evidence sufficient to prove that your deity exists. If you were, you wouldn't use the KCA as your primary debate position.

So I ask you again: Are you willing to admit you could be wrong about your beliefs in God?

I am going through each and every last one of you. Jazzman, you can be next.

Next? You're talking about "next" when you haven't begun "first" yet. You have your Kalam debate opponents. You shouldn't take on more than you can handle at once. Succeed with them before you concern yourself with who comes next.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Are you willing to ask my opponent the same question? To me it seems as if you guys are in fear of the kalam argument. But thats ok, because each and every last one of you people will have hell to pay. I am going through each and every last one of you. Jazzman, you can be next.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause2. The universe exist3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

howdy Majesty and ty for your service i won't be debating you in the other thread, but maybe you could answer me this...how do you know that the universe had a beginning did you observe it happening?

Are you willing to ask my opponent the same question? To me it seems as if you guys are in fear of the kalam argument. But thats ok, because each and every last one of you people will have hell to pay.

Tacit admission that you know you don't have a good enough argument to convince us atheists, so we're destined for hell.

Why would we fear an argument if it revealed the truth?

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Are you willing to ask my opponent the same question? To me it seems as if you guys are in fear of the kalam argument. But thats ok, because each and every last one of you people will have hell to pay. I am going through each and every last one of you. Jazzman, you can be next.

Afraid of it? No, we just have no issue with it. Most of the people here are agnostic atheists. That means we accept that a god type diety COULD exist. That doesn't mean it does. It is simply being intellectually honest enough to admit that someone could, one day, prove that a god of some sort exists. The job of the theist is to convince someone else that their God actually does. Since none of you can do that, we are just as free to simply say it doesn't. When you find a way to prove that an all powerful, invisible, omnimax, benevolent sky daddy who gives no information about himself exists... then we will talk. Until then, the kalam argument not only stops far short of actually proving a god MUST exist, it doesn't even remotely encroach on the idea of which God it is.

Hell to pay... lol. Good one!!

You will lose. You don't have truth on your side. You have no chance of winning. The reason WLC seems to win is because he is a good debater. It's a verbal skill, not a written one. He could sell you the shirt off your back. He could make a muslim buy a lap dance from a 2 dollar crack whore. But you have stepped into a debate where people have time to respond to the arguments with well thought out responses, and not get caught up in the lies and deceitful ramblings where he notoriously gets science wrong. WLC would lose there. So will you.

Sorry man, God is not real. Bank on it.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig argues that the first premise is supported most strongly by intuition, but also experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious," based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing," and doubts that anyone could sincerely deny it." [1]

Craig is making a (bad) assumption that our intuition and experience are the things we should trust when making scientific judgments. This has been proven false time and time again. Take quantum mechanics for one. I won't go into all the details here but suffice it to say our "experience and intuition" have nothing to do with how quantum mechanics works, and that's just one example from science.

Also, we don't know if there are structures other than our Universe out there, so just because our Universe started from a Big Bang doesn't preclude other structures that could have caused it which have always existed, and that we cannot observe at this time. We simply don't know - and not knowing doesn't mean that a deity caused it to happen. Therefore you will not succeed in your argument. But I will let you fail in the other debate thread.

Ok people, enough with the small talk. I am now about to present my arguments. I have read all of your comments up this point, are yall ready? It is 6:57pm in AZ, i dont know what the hell time zone AZ is in...but im starting my presentation, RIGHT NOW?? hehehehe LETS GO!!!